Social Cost Theory

Gauracandra · May 31, 2003

This week’s Srila Siddhaswarupananda television program deals with life & death.

Audience Member: I recently heard an interview with Dr. Christian Bernard. He was recommending that people with terminal illnesses take large overdoses of drugs because life at that point is meaningless.

Srila Siddhaswarupananda: Why is it meaningless? They say it is meaningless because the pain is greater than the pleasure. Therefore the body becomes meaningless. If the vehicle for sense pleasure becomes damaged such that it can no longer have pleasure then why live? You might as well just die. This is a logical conclusion if you believe that the purpose of life is to maximize sense pleasure.

However, if you understand that the goal of life is to engage in the loving service of God then you will reach a different conclusion. Pain is not the enemy, nor is pleasure the friend. They simply come and go. Sometimes you experience pain and sometimes you experience happiness. A devotee tries not to get wrapped up in either.

Krsnadas Kaviraj Goswami is a perfect example of a devotee. He wrote down the pastimes of Lord Caitanya in the 15th Century. His writings are the most beautiful, educational, and poetic writings to be found anywhere in the world. He wrote it in his last days when his body was racked so fully of pain. Yet if you read what came out of his heart, you would never imagine that he was in pain. His writings are full of happiness and love. Even though the body was a great burden he didn’t try to escape it. He simply tried to serve God completely. This is a practical example of how a devotee approaches bodily pain.

This Dr. Christian Bernard is saying that if you can’t enjoy then why exist. If you follow this idea to its logical conclusion then you will conclude that the handicapped, and children who are retarded should be killed. Children who are “unwanted” should be killed in the womb. After all, if they are unwanted, then they won’t have love and won’t be happy. It would be better for them to die. We are seeing this infanticide where a child born with some defect is let to starve to death. The underlying idea is that if the child can’t lead a “productive” life then it is better for them to die. Maybe he won’t grow up to be a corporate executive with 30 prostitutes, or maybe he can’t be “King Surfer”.

Therefore kill the old people. Then the old people will protest “But we can still have sex, we still have some purpose in life.” This is why they are trying to convince people that sex forever is important. Because without sex there is no purpose to life in their world view.

And kill the deformed babies and the unwanted babies. They will just be a burden to the taxpayers in welfare and prisons. This will also get in the way of our sense gratification.

Its all about social cost theory. If someone somehow doesn’t measure up then they are impure. Kill the old. Kill the unwanted. Kill the blacks. Kill the Jews. Why do you think the Jews created Israel? Because everyone wanted to liquidate them.

This is their standard. An old man can’t control his stool and urine. So they are thinking “This old man is costing the taxpayer $100 a day by taking up this bed.” And mothers are on welfare taking up tax dollars, so if we just get rid of them early on then the social cost is quite cheap. It is simply social cost theory.

This is so demoniac. This Dr. Christian Bernard is crazy. These are all the fruits of demoniac civilization. Godly people can hardly live in this civilization. Still we do our best to try and change it by letting others know that there is a higher goal to life and that is to develop our love for God.

Gauracandra · June 1, 2003

So this raises the question of what would be an appropriate welfare system for society.

I believe our current social welfare system masks the true harm of various activities. As such, the culture changes to view those activities as "not so bad". Its like, if you put some form of anesthetics in your hand, and then put your hand in a hot fire. All of a sudden the flesh burns but you feel no pain. You would be mistaken to then assume that fire wasn't damaging.

In the U.S. we have literally spent trillions of dollars on the "War on Poverty" and during the same time period we have seen a steady (and directly correlated) rise in illegitimacy (one example). Today the culture doesn't view illegitimacy as being "all that bad". Why? Because no one directly feels its effects, certainly not to the extent that the damage it creates. Pooled money from "wealthy" people is taken bit by bit, and then transfered to those who are in need. A person can have a child out of wedlock, and while it may not be easy, the damage this causes is masked by some mysterious cash that comes from no one in particular.

Now suppose just for the sake of argument, you removed all social welfare benefits today (not that I'm recommending this). What you would immediately see would be a level of pain and suffering among certain groups on a level most I think would be surprised. Why surprised? Because the damage was there all along but it was being masked. All of a sudden the direct results of bad behavior would be directly felt in those individual communities. Immediately I believe there would be a radical shift in the culture to the right. All of these communities would immediately say "Don't have sex outside of marriage. Get your education and ring on your finger first." Illegitimacy would become stigmatized again.

On the other side, if money were left in the churches themselves (rather than the government) then these institutions could assist the poor, and give a good message as well. Right now the check comes with no expectations of changes in behavior. A religious organization will give a message along with the assistance needed. This would strengthen the participation of religion in our communities (notice that the most socialist societies are also the most atheistic, coincidence? Nope.).

So what are your guys thoughts on what the proper spiritual welfare system should be?

June 1, 2003

<<Pain is not the enemy, nor is pleasure the friend. They simply come and go. Sometimes you experience pain and sometimes you experience happiness. A devotee tries not to get wrapped up in either.>>

very few can do aarti or sankirtan when the have stomach pain or acute pain. only very few can do it.

jai sri krishna!

June 1, 2003

Siddha Svarupa makes many good point in the posted article.

It reminds me when aspiring devotees would ask these kinds of questions to HIs Divine Grace. His reply was always chant Hare Krsna. What ever condition of live one is in we can try to think of Sri Krsna, hear about Sri Krsna, look at a picture and remember krsna, smell the flowers offerd to Krsna etc. OM Bhur BHUVA svah Tat- Krsna is present everywhere and we can serve him anywhere and under any condition but it takes training.